Phillips v. Target Stores Inc T-43

Filing 52

ORDER granting 43 Motion in Limine; denying 44 Motion to Strike as set forth herein. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 10/5/17. (ml)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA RUBYE PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, v. TARGET STORES, INC., T-43 a/k/a TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-16-527-D ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion in Limine [Doc. No. 43] and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Claim for Punitive Damages [Doc. No. 44]. Since Plaintiff has not responded to either motion within the prescribed time period, the motions may be deemed confessed. See LCvR 7.1(g) (“Any motion that is not opposed within 21 days may, in the discretion of the court, be deemed confessed.”). Nonetheless, since the issue of punitive damages is fact specific, the Court finds Defendant’s challenge to Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages is better suited for summary judgment consideration and Defendant’s Motion to Strike is denied on that basis. Moreover, although the Court grants Defendant’s Motion in Limine due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond, rulings in limine are subject to change as the case unfolds or at the Court’s discretion. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion in Limine is GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED as set forth herein. IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of October 2017. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?